Theo's original article on Americans standing up to the Federal Government had some interesting links:
Part of a series of moves by states seeking to utilize the Tenth Amendment as a limit on Federal Power, the Tennessee State Senate approved Senate Bill 1610 (SB1610), the Tennesse Firearms Freedom Act, by a vote of 22-7. The House companion bill, HB1796 previously passed the House by a vote of 87-1. Governor Breseden allowed the bill to become law without signing.
The law states that “federal laws and regulations do not apply to personal firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that is manufactured in Tennessee and remains in Tennessee. The limitation on federal law and regulation stated in this bill applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured using basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported into this state.”
The Federal Government, by way of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms expressed its own view of the Tenth Amendment this week when it issued an open letter to ‘all Tennessee Federal Firearms Licensees’ in which it denounced the opinion of Beavers and the Tennessee legislature. ATF assistant director Carson W. Carroll wrote that ‘Federal law supersedes the Act’, and thus the ATF considers it meaningless.
Constitutional historian Kevin R.C. Gutzman sees this as something far removed from the founders’ vision of constitutional government:“The letter says, in part, ‘because the Act conflicts with Federal firearms laws and regulations, Federal law supersedes the Act, and all provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, and their corresponding regulations, continue to apply.’
That is precisely what I predicted the Federal Government’s response to the Tennessee act would be. As I told Judge Andrew Napolitano on Fox News’s Glenn Beck Program on June 5, 2009, federal officials don’t care about a good historical argument concerning the meaning of the Constitution.”
That's serious stuff.
Via
Etheric Warriors, the move in
New Hampshire:
That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, -- delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself ....
It goes on and on. Those boys mean business.
Oregon's draft letter:
Preamble -
Oregon does not wish break its relationship of Statehood with the union between itself and the other 49 Sovereign Nation States under the Constitution for the united States of America..
Let this be abundantly clear; Oregon's Intent to Secede is based on the usurpations of power and infringements of Rights, and the putting upon the Citizens of Oregon "legislation and Acts", "mandates", "rules", "regulations", debt and taxation that are not granted to the Federal Government by the States..
A draft letter with exactly the same wording, apart from the state name, is proposed for South Carolina. 36 states are apparently speaking of this thing - will their letters all have the same wording? Whose wording?
Perry's reply to a question from the floor at the tea party
did not say Texas was going to secede but that it could.
What this is all about and what the
tea parties were all about was money, especially taxation.
What is the root of the secessionist movement?
The driving force at the grass roots level is of course money. Many Americans are rightly disturbed by the transfer of their wealth, and the wealth of their children, to companies that made risky investments, or were poorly managed. This is new territory for the government.
The transfer started under George W. Bush with his bank bailout and auto makers bailouts, and the Obama administration has really poured on the spending with additional bailouts and stimulus packages. Citizens of more fiscally conservative states are finding that there money is being redirected from their pockets, and sent to other states.
The mechanism is
the 10th Amendment. I can't see how far any of this is genuinely about secession but it seems more about stopping the federal tax onslaught and the arrogant attitude of the Federal Government to states rights, a stupid attitude, given America's history. Not to mention the trillion dollar spending plans and rake-offs to the banks.
Obama is one of Them, with eyes squarely on the multi-trillion spending blowout and sealing his place in history. His eyes are global but meanwhile, the states, the pillars of his own position are moving about under him, grumbling loudly.
Via Vox:
Glenn Reynolds has a summary in the Wall Street Journal:
The good news for Republicans is that, while the Republican Party flounders in its response to the Obama presidency and its programs, millions of Americans are getting organized on their own. The bad news is that those Americans, despite their opposition to President Obama's policies, aren't especially friendly to the GOP.
Via Michelle Malkin :
Hogberg’s IBD piece to get your motors running:
As unemployment soars and anger over Wall Street bailouts mounts, public outrage will seek an outlet. Populism could go in many directions — and could easily ebb when the economy revives. But if it takes shape as an anti-spending movement, it could revive conservatives much as the 1970s tax protests did.
So, there's a whole lot of anger out there and as usual, it is being seized on by those pushing their own agendas while people are genuinely hurting in the pocket and expressing it. It seems logical that if everything bounces back, the movement for secession might stall but if it goes as it seems it must go - downhill, then America is in for a very interesting late 2009/early 2010.
My question is - who benefits by secession? Clearly the sudden drop in Federal taxation and impositions on the states helps but how much of that filters through to the people themselves without the states raking off a percentage? Do the states still expect the Federal government to apply their Defense budget to the states who semi-seceded?
Another worry is the move to deconstruct the United States of America by means of encroachment on its powers via the NAAC and other bodies, without specifically stating that sovereignty has been lost. With Washington acting as it has, in tandem with the Fed, Goldman Sachs et al, the prime movers have a three-pronged attack:
1. Subsume the following powers under
a new advisory body:
a. defense
b. the judiciary
c. education
d. social security
e. opens the borders and creates access and egress via the state constructed NAFTA Superhighways
f. creates a free economic zone within NA shores
g is advised by the North American Advisory Council [CFR appointees - p53]
2. Create such anger with Washington by means of the bailouts, the economic crash and Obama's spendthrift policies that people would entertain the idea of secession, thus destabilizing the U.S.A. and allowing China and Russian open slather in the markets and on the world stage.
3. Pick off the rogue states and subsume them, undefended as they are, into a new superstate controlled by Them.
That's the plan of the CFR et al and you can read the doc at the end of the link above. As can be seen in all the unrest across the nation, not known since the Vietnam years [leave Monicagate out of it], the melting pot is envisaged.
Who was it said:
A house divided against itself cannot stand. I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided.
... ?
In Britain, the same process is well underway - people deeply disgruntled, the UK about to be broken up [it already partially is] post October 10 and desire to remove all pollies from Westminster, just as there is a desire to cull Washington over there.
The solution is simple - don't break up the union. Cull the politicians. Actually remove them, by the will of the people and create a far smaller, more constrained legislature, executive and judiciary, within the Constitution, retaining and maintaining the Constitution, your only bulwark against the coming tyranny and reasserting the rule of law and states rights, as was originally envisaged.
[And while you're at it, guys, support HR Resolution 615.].
